Yerko
14 years ago
Bottom line is 'right here and now'

...and right here and now I would take Rodgers over Favre in a heartbeat.

Rodgers has shown he is an excellent quarterback behind a semi-average offensive line (with top quality receivers). I seriously could not imagine what would have happened if Favre was behind the Packers offensive line this last season.

Favre was surrounded with a lot more weapons in Minnesota, a better offensive line, and a cute dome with air conditioning.

Rodgers was surrounded with some weapons (mainly our WRs), a semi-average offensive line, and outdoor conditions.

I'll never take away what Favre did for the Pack, but here and now...Rodgers is the better quarterback and we are lucky we landed another quality one.
UserPostedImage
wamj2008
14 years ago
I see Rodgers as giving the team an opportunity to win multiple SB's, as he doesn't turn the ball over and make stupid plays. He's definitely made in the Tom Brady/Joe Montana/Mr. Cool mode, versus the Favre/Elway/Gunslinger style of play.

2 out of the last 3 years, Favre could have QB-ed the NFC contender if he hadn't thrown season-ending rookie picks.
blank
Greg C.
14 years ago

We forget that the early years of the "streak" were enabled in part by a Vicodin addiction.

"Wade" wrote:



I've never heard anyone say this. The way I understand it, the Vicodin addiction was a byproduct of injuries that required pain relief medication, but I wouldn't think that the Vicodin addiction "enabled" the consecutive game streak in any way.

Another point in this thread that I don't agree with is that Favre had an advantage over Rodgers because he played in a dome. I don't think it was a significant advantage. I don't remember any Packer home games played in bad weather last year.
blank
Brettizzle
14 years ago
Well he is right for the most part, Rodgers got burned by Favre on a lot of throws and Favre picked Rodgers off a few times last year.
Jermichael Finley

We will be in Indianapolis

bozz_2006
14 years ago

I'm not sure why, but when I watched him occasionally via videos at NFL.com, Dukes struck me as one of the better talking heads out there. Probably my OL bias (I also like Ross Tucker).

Not to mention the alternatives against which he is compared are typically so very, very bad, that anything remotely articulate seems good by comparison.

As to the substantive point. I would rather have Rodgers right now than Favre. In fact I can't think of a quarterback I'd rather have than Rodgers, save perhaps Bart Starr c. 1965. Not Favre. Not Brady. Not Brees. Not M*nning.

I think this is part of the reason I continue to be so damn unreasonable about the OL. I think about what Rodgers would do with a topflight line, instead of one I considered servicable at best at the end of last year, and it almost makes me drool. And I worry that, because of that line, there's too high a likelihood of that one low hit or cheap shot (can you say "New Orleans"?) away from the quarterback equivalent of Eddie Lee Ivery or Gale Sayers.

We Packer fans are so spoiled from the F*vre years of never missing a game. We forget that the early years of the "streak" were enabled in part by a Vicodin addiction. That the years of Favre's career did not all take place behind a dominant line, and that without his freakish durability, we would have had to make do without him more than once.

I think Rodgers has something that could make him the greatest quarterback ever. But not if he's on the sideline in street clothes.

"Wade" wrote:


Did someone say Ross Tucker? 
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

We forget that the early years of the "streak" were enabled in part by a Vicodin addiction.

"Greg C." wrote:



I've never heard anyone say this. The way I understand it, the Vicodin addiction was a byproduct of injuries that required pain relief medication, but I wouldn't think that the Vicodin addiction "enabled" the consecutive game streak in any way.

Another point in this thread that I don't agree with is that Favre had an advantage over Rodgers because he played in a dome. I don't think it was a significant advantage. I don't remember any Packer home games played in bad weather last year.

"Wade" wrote:



I'm not making a moral judgment.

But the reason people take Vicodin is for pain. Severe pain. To lessen the pain.

There is no doubt that Favre has one of the highest pain thresholds out there. That he is able to play through pain that would bench any other quarterback. But he still has some pain threshold that he won't be able to handle. Everyone does. If he's taking Vicodin at time X, its because without it he's got concern that the pain is at/near a level he considers "too high" to perform at.

If he's taking too many Vicodin, there's a pain issue there.

The fact that he played with the help of Vicodin doesn't make him any less of "the NFL ironman to define NFL ironmen". But if he's not taking the hgh powered pain medication, he would have been more likely to pass whatever that "pain-threshold-beyond-which-even-Favre-couldn't-have-played".

But again, my main point is not that Favre wouldn't have had the streak. My main point is that we should not assume that Rodgers is an out-of-this-world ironman. It's better to assume that, when it comes to being able to play with injury, Rodgers is closer to the "average NFL quarterback" than he is to "the greatest ironman in NFL history".

My point is that if he gets hit too much, he's likely going to go down to injury sooner than Favre. And if he goes down unnecessarily (e.g., because he plays too many plays behind a sub-standard OL), the Packers will be losing what may be the best QB in the league.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Gravedigga
14 years ago



Favre was surrounded with a lot more weapons in Minnesota, a better offensive line, and a cute dome with air conditioning.

Rodgers was surrounded with some weapons (mainly our WRs), a semi-average offensive line, and outdoor conditions.

"G-Force" wrote:




Here we go again with you guys. You say he had a lot more weapons which couldnt be further from the truth. His weapons coming into the season were much worse, esepcially considering he never played with them. I would definitely take the Packers weapons on offense over Minnesotas. For all the talk of Minnys "great" O-line, they couldn't run block worth shit and it was all on Favres shoulders at the end of the year. That o-line provided him with multiple ass kickings at the end of the year(Arizona, Chicago, New Orleans) off the top of my head.

Receivers.........are you kidding. The packers had and still have the best group of receivers in the league IMO. Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson and the two tight ends vs Harvin(rookie), Rice(nothing before Favre showed up), Berrian(overrated, one trick pony), Schianko(nothing before Favre showed up).

Grant vs Peterson I give you that but Peterson fumbled away games with his 7 fumbles while Grant stayed consistent and got good in the 2nd half of the year and fumbled once. Also, for all this talk, Grant had 4.4 yards per carry and 1253 yards vs Petersons 4.4 yards per carry and 1383 yards. Not a significant difference. 11 TD's vs 18 but that's more reflective of field position than anything else.

Stop trying to discount what Favre did by making stuff up about weapons. Only makes you look bitter.
--------------------------------------------
UserPostedImage


A wise man once said
---------------------------------------------
You are weak, pathetic and immature..............I would have d
Tezzy
14 years ago
First, I don't think in anyway is Jamie Dukes stupid. And certainly not for these Favre comments. Plain and simple, Rodgers went 0-2 against Favre and was 0-1 in the playoffs while Favre was 1-1. Call that butt licking if you like, but I don't see it. If that's not someones criteria for what says one QB is better than another, so be it. But it definetely isn't a stupid opinion if you ask me. Either you agree or disagree, but I don't understand the ad hominem.
On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."
go.pack.go.
14 years ago

Bottom line is 'right here and now'

...and right here and now I would take Rodgers over Favre in a heartbeat.

Rodgers has shown he is an excellent quarterback behind a semi-average offensive line (with top quality receivers). I seriously could not imagine what would have happened if Favre was behind the Packers offensive line this last season.

Favre was surrounded with a lot more weapons in Minnesota, a better offensive line, and a cute dome with air conditioning.

Rodgers was surrounded with some weapons (mainly our WRs), a semi-average offensive line, and outdoor conditions.

I'll never take away what Favre did for the Pack, but here and now...Rodgers is the better quarterback and we are lucky we landed another quality one.

"G-Force" wrote:



I disagree with one thing in this post. Favre was NOT surrounded with more weapons. Yes, he had the best RB in the NFL and a few good receivers, but I don't think that Minnesota's receivers are anywhere close to the talent that the Packers have. Add Jermichael Finley in the contest and it's not even close.

The Vikings offensive line IS better though. I'll give you that.

Just remember: Favre makes just about any receiver look good. Just look at Sidney Rice for an example. He wasn't all that great before he got Brett as his QB.
UserPostedImage
Packers_Finland
14 years ago

First, I don't think in anyway is Jamie Dukes stupid.

"Tezzy" wrote:



After saying Peppers > Allen. I'd say he is stupid. Well that, and the fact that he thinks Vick deserves a second chance as a starter but Clausen doesn't deserve a starting spot (after displaying "immaturity" in college).

Edit: I think he's not wrong in saying Favre is better than Rodgers. That's a credible opinion. But the way he acted during that Favre vs Rodgers segment was the definition of being a biased idiot.
This is a placeholder
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (10h) : From what I'm reading, MM is under contract through the 14th of January; after that he's free game
Zero2Cool (11h) : McCarthy let go or not extended??
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Chicago Bears have asked the Dallas Cowboys permission to interview Mike McCarthy for head coaching vacancy
Zero2Cool (17h) : The winners page that is
Zero2Cool (17h) : I was not hoping for that. It messes up the page lol
beast (18h) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (18h) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (18h) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3
Zero2Cool (18h) : congrats beast on 2024 !
Zero2Cool (18h) : congrats porky on winning 2023 pick'em! (oops sorry)
Zero2Cool (19h) : Packers have $60M+ of 2025 cap space on paper TODAY.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Missed FG into a Lions TD; that'll do pig, that'll do
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : That might be it for the Vikings
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Oh so the refs do know what intentional grounding is
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : what the hell was that Goff?! Not much pressure and he just air mails it to Harrison
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : They really need to to get rid of the auto first down for illegal contact
Martha Careful (6-Jan) : watching the Vikings and Lions it's understandable why they swept the Packers. So much better product
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Even when GB got pressure he was throwing darts; vs no pressure on that last pass he just air mails an open guy
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : didn't have guys in his face ... pressure makes difference
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Where was this Darnold vs GB?
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : BALL DON'T LIE
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : how was that not a safety? Goff throws it at an offensive lineman
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Zero, I thought that was a given! ;)
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Zero I looked through earlier and noticed the same thing. Bonkers year. I just wonder if beast put any money on games
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : I'm hoping for BLOODBATH. Pummel one another.
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : 8 people in pick'em would have won any year with their total lol
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : I'm rooting for the Lions to lose.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : God help me but I'm rooting for the Vikings to...Vikings to...Christ I can't say it
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : 4 td for Rodgers
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Chiefs got shutout
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Rodgers passes for 3rd TD. might be last game of an amazing career
Mucky Tundra (5-Jan) : "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry."
Zero2Cool (5-Jan) : Owner ... love it
Zero2Cool (5-Jan) : Mayo was the guy they groomed for HC and one of the reasons they let Bill go.
Mucky Tundra (5-Jan) : Pats have the #4 pick, lots of cap space and Maye at QB; should fetch some attention
Mucky Tundra (5-Jan) : Well that didn't take long; Jerod Mayo out as Patriots HC
Zero2Cool (5-Jan) : I would expect it to be higher in favor of Eagles
Mucky Tundra (5-Jan) : Thst line seems...generous
Zero2Cool (5-Jan) : Eagles -3.5 over Packers in Wildcard Round
Mucky Tundra (5-Jan) : Did it though? Pokes beat the Commanders on the road with Cooper Rush previously
Zero2Cool (5-Jan) : That gives them their best chance
Mucky Tundra (5-Jan) : Cowboys starting Trey Lance at QB vs Commanders; GB vs Philly in the Wild Card incoming!
Mucky Tundra (4-Jan) : Stinks for Lloyd. Hoping he comes back strong for next year
Zero2Cool (3-Jan) : Packers placed Marshawn Lloyd on reserve non-football illness list
Zero2Cool (3-Jan) : Luke Getsy been helping Packers defense. He's former OC Bears/Raiders and our old QB coach
beast (2-Jan) : Thanks dfosterf, I'm still kicking myself for last week, as I forgot to change to pick Vikings and Lions... after putting in a holding spot.
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : First alternate: Elgton Jenkins Other alternates: Jordan Love, Kenny Clark, Keisean Nixon, Tucker Kraft, Josh Myers, Jaire Alexander
Zero2Cool (2-Jan) : Pro Bowl still a thing? Guess Packers have three. Jacobs, Gary, McKinney.
dfosterf (2-Jan) : It's a mine field with all the players sitting, etc
dfosterf (2-Jan) : There was quite a bit of "chalk" matchups this year it seemed, but not this week coming up
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
8h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

20h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

3-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Jan / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

2-Jan / GameDay Threads / Zero2Cool

2-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.